Talk:Florence Green

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Florence Green article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: Aviation / Biography / British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Longevity Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Aviation: Biography

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.

Waitress - Veteran?

I wondered why the news usually list only two veterans and Mrs. Green is left out (even though she was first mention only in 2010). Should she really be considered a veteran? She was a waitress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.130 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- agreed. with all due respect to her service and her longevity, semantics (and maybe political correctness) is the only reason she could be classified as a veteran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.4.63 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction you're looking for is "combat veteran" vs "non-combat veteran". 'Veteran' includes both; there are plenty of men out there who served in non-combat roles and I've never heard anybody complaining when they're called 'veterans'. --GenericBob (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Wikipedia entry about the WRAF. It was a pseudo-military organization created to fill essential civilian positions so that able-bodied men could serve in the actual armed forces. Cooks, clerks, and nurses in the actual armed forces are trained and expected to take up arms, if necessary. This was not the case with the WRAF. The WRAF filled a specific national service need, just not a military one. This is no criticism of Ms. Green. She is a patriot who did what she could in the era she into which she was born, and she should be considered notable for being the last WRAF member. I suspect Ms. Green turned up so late as a "veteran" because neither she nor anyone else would have ever considered her a military veteran until our current age of political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there were men who spent the whole of the war typing letters in Washington, London or Berlin; they were nonetheless counted as veterans. There were men who spent the whole of the war cooking meals for trainees at Fort Devens, Colchester Garrison or Laupheim; they were nonetheless counted as veterans.
But, of course, they were men, and so the civvie chickenhawks who can't stand the thought of women in uniform are fine with that, and would never dare disparage their service. No one dared disparage the service of Frank Buckles, a teenage ambulance driver who never fired a shot in anger. No one dared disparage the service of Claude Choules, a 14-year-old boy midshipman who ran messages on his ship. No one dared disparage the service of John Campbell Ross, a wireless operator who never left the shores of Australia. No one dared disparage the service of Henry Allingham, an aircraft mechanic. No one dared disparage the service of Ned Hughes, a truck driver. Why? Because they were men, of course. Ravenswing 07:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the overall sentiment but I don't think two of those examples are appropriate. Claude Choules did actually see combat (he helped shoot down an airship) and the fact he didn't see more action says more about the state of naval warfare in World War I than about his position. Henry Allingham came close enough to the Battle of Jutland to see the gunfire and recalled being shelled while repairing aircraft on the Western Front. Hut 8.5 09:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choules was on a ship that did shoot down an airship, true, but his duty station didn't involve manning any guns. Allingham did come under shellfire, true, something that happened to countless people, whether wearing uniforms or not. Ravenswing 10:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Choules and Allingham were combatants: their job required them to directly help in killing enemy soldiers (and expose them to considerable personal risk in the process). The fact that Choules wasn't manning a gun doesn't mean he wasn't helping. I don't think the fact that Green was not taking part in hostilities and was never in any danger disqualifies her from veteran status but there is a distinction to be made. Hut 8.5 21:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All this discussion about what a particular person did or did not do while in the actual military is missing the point. The men referenced were all part of traditional military units with actual or potential roles in combat or support operations. None of them were in units created to fill civilian positions so others (i.e. men) could serve in the actual armed forces. If a man had pretended to be a woman and snuck into the WRAF, he would not be considered a veteran, not now and especially not then. He would be considered a coward who tried to avoid even the remotest possibility of seeing combat. It is foolish to attempt to fit 21st century notions of the role of women in the armed forces onto a woman during WWI. Ms. Green did what was possible for a patriotic, service-minded woman of her time. If the government of the UK wants to consider her a veteran, let her be the "last veteran of WWI," but a clear distinction should be made between her pseudo-military service and the true military service of the male veterans of WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is projecting anything: Green was a member of the armed forces of a combatant country at the time of the armistice. What she did as a member of the armed forces isn't relevant to her veteran status. If a man served in the armed forces in a position which did not involve "actual or potential roles in combat or support operations" he would be considered a veteran. Your hypothetical "man sneaking into the WRAF" example isn't comparable because it involved active dishonesty on the part of the man. Hut 8.5 08:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example is very appropriate. If a woman had "dishonestly" gotten into the RAF during WWI by pretending to be a man, she would not only be considered a veteran but a feminist icon as well. There would not be the same sentiment about a man who pretended to be a woman and got into the WRAF. This is because the RAF and WRAF were not equal services branches, and men were expected to serve in the branch where they might actually be placed in harm's way. All males, including cooks, clerks, and all other support jobs, were expected to serve on the front lines when necessary. Ms. Green was a patriot, but she was in a branch separate from the rest of the UK military so she would have no chance of being in harm's way. This is an important distinction that must be made between male and female veterans of this era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Veteran

Ms. Green is by all accounts a veteran but the question remains is she a veteran of WW1? If she is not then the final veteran is Claude Choules who saw action against a German Zeppelin when it attacked his ship. Also I can not serve in the national guard in Muncie Indiana and call myself an Iraq War Veteran. This is overwhelming evidence against her. However the saving grace in her case is the fact she was awarded by the British Government the Victory Medal. However we really need to look into this. (I Dan tha Man I (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

When you note that "we really need to look into this" it is worth pointing out that we already have. We have multiple reliable sources which state that Green was the last serviving veteran of WW1. It is not for us to engage in original research (see WP:OR). However if you have some relaible sources which state that Green was not the last serviving veteran of WW1 then that would be of note. As for your point about Iraq War veterans, the difference is that the Iraq War was in Iraq while WW1 was global. Greenshed (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]